Abstract
This paper describes and compares individual students' understanding of a range of concepts associated with electric and magnetic fields. Data are drawn from written tests and detailed interviews of students from a first-year university physics class. The case study approach makes it possible to examine in depth the interaction between conceptions of various related topics in the students' minds. The theoretical framework of the SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) Taxonomy, as elaborated in a previous paper on this topic area by the author, is further advanced here. Using this framework, the paper provides insight into a more detailed view of students' understanding of fields, which in turn casts light on possible teaching strategies for fields and related topics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1980). The SOLO Taxonomy.Education News, 17(5), 19–23.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press
Collis, K., & Biggs, J. (1991). Developmental determinants of qualitative aspects of school learning. In G. Evans (Ed.),Learning and teaching cognitive skills (pp. 184–207). Melbourne: ACER
Fergusson-Hessler, M., & de Jong, T. (1987). On the quality of knowledge in the field of electricity and magnetism.American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 492–497.
Guth, J., & Pegg, J. (1994). First-year tertiary students' understandings of iron filing patterns around a magnet.Research in Science Education, 24, 137–146.
Herrmann, F. (1991). Teaching the magnetostatic field: Problems to avoid.American Journal of Physics, 59(5), 447–452.
Levins, L., & Pegg, J. (1993). Students' understanding of concepts related to plant growth.Research in Science Education, 23, 165–173.
MacMillian, C., & Swadener, M. (1991). Novice use of qualitative versus quantitative problem solving in electrostatics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 661–670.
Maloney, D. P. (1985). Charged poles?Physics Education, 20, 310–316.
Pegg, J. (1992). Assessing students' understanding at the primary and secondary level in the mathematical sciences. In M. Stephens & J. Lizard (Eds.),Reshaping assessment practices: Assessment in the mathematical sciences under challenge (pp 368–385). Hawthorn: ACER
Pegg, J., & Coady, C. (1993). Identifying SOLO levels in the Formal mode. In I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F.-L. Lin (Eds.),Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1)(pp. 212–219) Tsukaba, Japan: University of Tsukaba.
Stanbridge, B. (1993). Towards an alternative mode of assessment in senior chemistry: Using cognitive criteria.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 39(3), 69–72.
Stocklmayer, S. M., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). A historical analysis of electric currents in textbooks: A century of influence on physics education.Science & Education, 3, 131–154.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Treagust D. F., & Zadnik, M. (1994, July).Why use a particle model to teach electricity? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Hobart.
Törnkvist, S., Petterson, K.-A., & Tranströmer, G. (1993). Confusion by representation: On students' comprehension of the electric field concept.American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 335–338.
Viennot, L., & Rainson, S. (1992). Students' reasoning about the superposition of electric fields.International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 475–487.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guth, J. An in-depth study of two individual students' understanding of electric and magnetic fields. Research in Science Education 25, 479–490 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357389
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357389